Cazenovia Pilot: Cazenovia School District Survey Results

February 01, 2008

Cazenovia School District Survey Results

Update: I received a letter today from Mr. Dubik. In it, he thanks me for calling the error to his attention. Mr. Dubik requested that the survey company revise the document, and he has had the revised version put on the district web site with comments on the page indicating that it was changed. Kudos to him for his prompt and very professional response. Thank you, Mr. Dubik.

My original message follows below:

I wasn't able to attend the recent public hearing about the school district's survey results. But I did finally get around to reading their report this morning. It has some interesting observations about the district, the schools, and the board. The crux of the survey was the athletic improvements, since the issues the district had with communicating its plans would up driving the need for a survey. And in this regard the survey failed. The page that breaks down the community's opinion of the current state of athletic facilities and fields has a factual error and its summary leverages that error to push the need for improvements again.

I wrote a letter to the superintendent of schools this morning; I am posting it here in case anybody's interested in the details.

[January 29, 2008]

Mr. Dubik:

As a parent of a child in the Cazenovia Central School District, I was one of the 476 people who completed the district’s recent survey. I was just reading the results on the district web site, and on page 32 there is a curious statement:

Nearly half of all respondents (43%) either disagree or strongly disagree that the current fields and facilities offered at Cazenovia Central Schools are adequate. Most in need (among mentions from the community) are the football fields, baseball and softball fields, and all outdoor fields (in general).

According to the graph on the very same page, the “Strongly Disagree” response was 13%, and the “Disagree” response was 20%, for a total of 33%, or approximately one in three respondents. Those who “Strongly Agree (28%) or Agree (30%) make up 58% of the respondents. Instead of “nearly half” disagreeing that the facilities are adequate, it is far more accurate to suggest that the vast majority of taxpayers believe that the athletic facilities are adequate.

The rest of the report has numbers and claims that seem accurate. Page 32, which is really the heart of the matter since the district would not have commissioned this survey without the controversy over its facilities improvement plans, continues to show the bias and poor communication for which the board and the district have been called to task repeatedly.

I urge you to post the corrected version of the numbers immediately, and to publicly apologize for the district’s continued attempts at obfuscation in pursuit of improvements to its athletic facilities.

Very sincerely,

Jim Jurista
Cazenovia, NY

For what it's worth, I am very pleased with the quality of education, support, and services that my child receives in the district. Beyond the board's "irrational exuberance" about the athletic field improvements - exuberance which has led to no small amount of community tension - I think the district is doing a great job.